- 98 - obligation not to take part, either actively or passively, in acts that constitute participation or complicity in torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; they have the obligation to record in their reports the existence of evidence of ill-treatment, if applicable, and must take steps to notify possible abuse to the corresponding authorities or, if this entails possible risks to the health professionals or their patients, to authorities outside the immediate jurisdiction. Similarly, the State must guarantee the independence of medical and health care personnel responsible for examining and providing care to detainees.368 276. In the instant case, the Court notes that, despite indications and even express denunciations of torture and sexual violence, the authorities did not ensure a complete and detailed medical and psychological examination by appropriate trained personnel. To the contrary, as revealed by the prison entry records and the facts acknowledged by the State, the examination performed was merely a superficial physical examination where the doctors refused to document the women’s allegations of sexual violence and torture. The Court also note that: i) ii) iii) iv) v) vi) vii) In some cases, the physical examination was performed by male forensic personnel, and there is no record that the women were offered the presence of anyone of the sex they preferred, even though they had reported acts of sexual violence; In most cases, the examinations were performed in the presence of other detainees, and even in the presence of law enforcement agents; The entry records do not contain any of the information provided by the women on the facts that occurred during their arrest, transfer and entry into the prison; There is no other documentation, particularly photographic documentation, to support the observations of the personnel who intervened; There is no interpretation of the probable relationship between the physical symptoms and the possible torture referred to by the women victims in this case; There is no information that they were advised that they could be accompanied by a person of confidence during the examination; to the contrary, the women victims in this case were kept incommunicado from their families; The lack of independence, appropriateness and training of the medical personnel involved was revealed by the ill-treatment and stigmatizing and revictimizing statements they made to the victims in some cases, insulting and mocking them, disbelieving their allegations, and refusing to record the facts they recounted. 277. In particular, the Court highlights that, except in the cases of Bárbara Italia Méndez Moreno and Claudia Hernández Martínez, the physical examinations performed on entry into the examination is being conducted (e.g. detention centre, clinic, house, etc.); any appropriate circumstances at the time of the examination (e.g. nature of any restraints on arrival or during the examination, presence of law enforcement personnel during the examination, demeanour of those accompanying the prisoner, threatening statements to the examiner, etc.); and any other relevant factor; (b) The background. A detailed record of the subject’s story as given during the interview, including alleged methods of torture or ill-treatment, the time when torture or ill-treatment was alleged to have occurred and all complaints of physical and psychological symptoms; (c) A physical and psychological examination. A record of all physical and psychological findings upon clinical examination including appropriate diagnostic tests and, where possible, colour photographs of all injuries; (d) An opinion. An interpretation as to the probable relationship of physical and psychological findings to possible torture or ill-treatment. A recommendation for any necessary medical and psychological treatment or further examination should also be given, and (e) A record of authorship. The report should clearly identify those carrying out the examination and should be signed. Cf. Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 289, para. 251. Cf. Case of Bayarri v. Argentina. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C No, 187, para. 92, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 289, paras. 258 and 260. 368